The demise of McKinley ES (APS)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Can someone summarize the “Save McKinley” argue as to why that’s better for the broader system, rather than just people in the McKinley walk zone? I know that numbers put out so far show some enrollment imbalance, but that can be fixed through boundary refinement that would be necessary under any scenario. Part of what made the Tuckahoe thing so alienating was that their argument was all about what was best for them, regardless of anyone else’s needs. I think Nottingham’s activism was ultimately self-serving, but at least they made arguments why what was best for them was also better for the broader system. What’s McKinley‘s argument for why anyone but McKinley people should care about this proposal to move ATS to McKinley?

I'm curious about this, as well. I really don't get it since so much of McKinley is actually in the Reed walk zone. Is it No More Option Schools in the N or just We Want to Keep Walking Regardless Of The Greater Consequences?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Can someone summarize the “Save McKinley” argue as to why that’s better for the broader system, rather than just people in the McKinley walk zone? I know that numbers put out so far show some enrollment imbalance, but that can be fixed through boundary refinement that would be necessary under any scenario. Part of what made the Tuckahoe thing so alienating was that their argument was all about what was best for them, regardless of anyone else’s needs. I think Nottingham’s activism was ultimately self-serving, but at least they made arguments why what was best for them was also better for the broader system. What’s McKinley‘s argument for why anyone but McKinley people should care about this proposal to move ATS to McKinley?

Because this proposal basically leaves Reed at capacity from day one without allowing for growth, and it also leaves Ashlawn and Glebe over while not addressing Tuckahoe/Nottingham. And the only way to change that is to do the opposite of what they're saying and redraw all the boundaries anyway. Where, if you make Nottingham/Tuckahoe option and keep Mck and Reed you get more rebalancing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Can someone summarize the “Save McKinley” argue as to why that’s better for the broader system, rather than just people in the McKinley walk zone? I know that numbers put out so far show some enrollment imbalance, but that can be fixed through boundary refinement that would be necessary under any scenario. Part of what made the Tuckahoe thing so alienating was that their argument was all about what was best for them, regardless of anyone else’s needs. I think Nottingham’s activism was ultimately self-serving, but at least they made arguments why what was best for them was also better for the broader system. What’s McKinley‘s argument for why anyone but McKinley people should care about this proposal to move ATS to McKinley?

The real question is why isn't ATS going to Ashlawn? Aren't there more walkers for McK? Ashlawn is closer to South Arlington, closer to bus service....or what about moving EL/Campbell to Ashlawn (lots of nature across the street)?

[Anonymous]

I'm not a "Save McKinley" proponent but why can't ATS stay right where it is? It's not in the IPP so why are we trying to move it to a bigger building, and why is it a "pro" under both proposals that 100 more kids could go there? I'm a South Arlington resident and I think ATS is bad for South Arlington.

And, ATS is a not a walkable school so keep it as an option but without moving Immersion or Campbell there. What's wrong with Immersion to Carlin Springs, full stop? Yes, there will be a somewhat wide swath of West Pike with no neighborhood school, but Campbell is functionally a neighborhood school for Glencarlyn anyway. Split up the non-Glencarlyn PUs between Abingdon and Ashlawn and do tons of outreach to that community to get them to apply to CS as Immersion. McK, Reed, and ASFS can take Ashlawn's long boundary and some of Glebe.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone summarize the “Save McKinley” argue as to why that’s better for the broader system, rather than just people in the McKinley walk zone? I know that numbers put out so far show some enrollment imbalance, but that can be fixed through boundary refinement that would be necessary under any scenario. Part of what made the Tuckahoe thing so alienating was that their argument was all about what was best for them, regardless of anyone else’s needs. I think Nottingham’s activism was ultimately self-serving, but at least they made arguments why what was best for them was also better for the broader system. What’s McKinley‘s argument for why anyone but McKinley people should care about this proposal to move ATS to McKinley?

Because this proposal basically leaves Reed at capacity from day one without allowing for growth, and it also leaves Ashlawn and Glebe over while not addressing Tuckahoe/Nottingham. And the only way to change that is to do the opposite of what they're saying and redraw all the boundaries anyway. Where, if you make Nottingham/Tuckahoe option and keep Mck and Reed you get more rebalancing.

All of those things can be refined and addressed when they actually draw the boundaries- they can shift assignments to better balance things out. It doesn't mean that the fundamental plan is flawed, only that some of the people being moved don't like it and are trying to shine the spotlight on other communities instead to spare their own.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone summarize the “Save McKinley” argue as to why that’s better for the broader system, rather than just people in the McKinley walk zone? I know that numbers put out so far show some enrollment imbalance, but that can be fixed through boundary refinement that would be necessary under any scenario. Part of what made the Tuckahoe thing so alienating was that their argument was all about what was best for them, regardless of anyone else’s needs. I think Nottingham’s activism was ultimately self-serving, but at least they made arguments why what was best for them was also better for the broader system. What’s McKinley‘s argument for why anyone but McKinley people should care about this proposal to move ATS to McKinley?

I'm curious about this, as well. I really don't get it since so much of McKinley is actually in the Reed walk zone. Is it No More Option Schools in the N or just We Want to Keep Walking Regardless Of The Greater Consequences?

Let me try. That APS zone map that is supposedly driving this decision was misleading. If you look at where the population is today in Arlington (and where it is expected to grow), it is all south of Lee Highway. By clustering McKinley in Zone 1 and Taylor in Zone 2, APS masked the reality of where the population density currently sits and where the empty seats are really located. A better map would have been a heat map at the planning unit level so you can see where the number of kids are located OUTSIDE the walkable planning units. They also need to look at which planning units send a larger # of kids to private school.

When you go back and look at the planning unit level data that they released during the 2018 walk zone meetings, you can see where this is about to become a complete CF during the boundary drawing process. There are a lot of kids around Glebe, Ashlawn, and McKinley who aren't "walkable" because those roads are busier and therefore classified as off-limits to elementary kids without a crossing guard. And APS assumes in its analysis that there are no new crossing guards added to the system. But if you look at where kids actually live, you can see the need to leave more neighborhood seats in that area. Otherwise, you have to push kids upwards in a domino effect to fill the empty seats at Jamestown and Discovery. And that creates long skinny boundaries and probably at the end some walkers on the bus. The alternative is leaving Ashlawn, Reed, and Glebe overcrowded (and possibly also Tuckahoe in a few years, depending on what happens with those new townhomes and development around EFC) with empty seats at Discovery and Jamestown.

We need to leave breathing room in the areas of the County where we expect growth. That's the concern.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone summarize the “Save McKinley” argue as to why that’s better for the broader system, rather than just people in the McKinley walk zone? I know that numbers put out so far show some enrollment imbalance, but that can be fixed through boundary refinement that would be necessary under any scenario. Part of what made the Tuckahoe thing so alienating was that their argument was all about what was best for them, regardless of anyone else’s needs. I think Nottingham’s activism was ultimately self-serving, but at least they made arguments why what was best for them was also better for the broader system. What’s McKinley‘s argument for why anyone but McKinley people should care about this proposal to move ATS to McKinley?

Because this proposal basically leaves Reed at capacity from day one without allowing for growth, and it also leaves Ashlawn and Glebe over while not addressing Tuckahoe/Nottingham. And the only way to change that is to do the opposite of what they're saying and redraw all the boundaries anyway. Where, if you make Nottingham/Tuckahoe option and keep Mck and Reed you get more rebalancing.

All of those things can be refined and addressed when they actually draw the boundaries- they can shift assignments to better balance things out. It doesn't mean that the fundamental plan is flawed, only that some of the people being moved don't like it and are trying to shine the spotlight on other communities instead to spare their own.

'

At that point you're not moving McK as a whole, you're moving about half of it. And you'd be drawing the crazy boundaries they've been trying to avoid from the beginning.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone summarize the “Save McKinley” argue as to why that’s better for the broader system, rather than just people in the McKinley walk zone? I know that numbers put out so far show some enrollment imbalance, but that can be fixed through boundary refinement that would be necessary under any scenario. Part of what made the Tuckahoe thing so alienating was that their argument was all about what was best for them, regardless of anyone else’s needs. I think Nottingham’s activism was ultimately self-serving, but at least they made arguments why what was best for them was also better for the broader system. What’s McKinley‘s argument for why anyone but McKinley people should care about this proposal to move ATS to McKinley?

I'm curious about this, as well. I really don't get it since so much of McKinley is actually in the Reed walk zone. Is it No More Option Schools in the N or just We Want to Keep Walking Regardless Of The Greater Consequences?

Let me try. That APS zone map that is supposedly driving this decision was misleading. If you look at where the population is today in Arlington (and where it is expected to grow), it is all south of Lee Highway. By clustering McKinley in Zone 1 and Taylor in Zone 2, APS masked the reality of where the population density currently sits and where the empty seats are really located. A better map would have been a heat map at the planning unit level so you can see where the number of kids are located OUTSIDE the walkable planning units. They also need to look at which planning units send a larger # of kids to private school.

When you go back and look at the planning unit level data that they released during the 2018 walk zone meetings, you can see where this is about to become a complete CF during the boundary drawing process. There are a lot of kids around Glebe, Ashlawn, and McKinley who aren't "walkable" because those roads are busier and therefore classified as off-limits to elementary kids without a crossing guard. And APS assumes in its analysis that there are no new crossing guards added to the system. But if you look at where kids actually live, you can see the need to leave more neighborhood seats in that area. Otherwise, you have to push kids upwards in a domino effect to fill the empty seats at Jamestown and Discovery. And that creates long skinny boundaries and probably at the end some walkers on the bus. The alternative is leaving Ashlawn, Reed, and Glebe overcrowded (and possibly also Tuckahoe in a few years, depending on what happens with those new townhomes and development around EFC) with empty seats at Discovery and Jamestown.

We need to leave breathing room in the areas of the County where we expect growth. That's the concern.

DP. Is there a heat map or approximation of same?

I'm not personally affected by this much at all, but am really questioning why, if the only thing on the table right now is relocating option programs and boundaries will be done shortly thereafter, the fill rates are being considered at all? How does that advance the analysis of where to move the option schools? It seems to be the relevant questions are: Should Immersion be located near the most Spanish speakers? Should two Immersion programs be located relatively close to one another? Should option schools be located in less walkable areas? Where are those areas? Should neighborhood seats be kept near dense populations of students? Where are those areas? Should we be expanding ATS and, if so, why? Can Campbell's program be successful at another site far away from Long Branch?

In short, who cares about the fill rates, they can be adjusted later. I don't see any analysis of why the particular option moves on the table make sense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone summarize the “Save McKinley” argue as to why that’s better for the broader system, rather than just people in the McKinley walk zone? I know that numbers put out so far show some enrollment imbalance, but that can be fixed through boundary refinement that would be necessary under any scenario. Part of what made the Tuckahoe thing so alienating was that their argument was all about what was best for them, regardless of anyone else’s needs. I think Nottingham’s activism was ultimately self-serving, but at least they made arguments why what was best for them was also better for the broader system. What’s McKinley‘s argument for why anyone but McKinley people should care about this proposal to move ATS to McKinley?

I'm curious about this, as well. I really don't get it since so much of McKinley is actually in the Reed walk zone. Is it No More Option Schools in the N or just We Want to Keep Walking Regardless Of The Greater Consequences?

Let me try. That APS zone map that is supposedly driving this decision was misleading. If you look at where the population is today in Arlington (and where it is expected to grow), it is all south of Lee Highway. By clustering McKinley in Zone 1 and Taylor in Zone 2, APS masked the reality of where the population density currently sits and where the empty seats are really located. A better map would have been a heat map at the planning unit level so you can see where the number of kids are located OUTSIDE the walkable planning units. They also need to look at which planning units send a larger # of kids to private school.

When you go back and look at the planning unit level data that they released during the 2018 walk zone meetings, you can see where this is about to become a complete CF during the boundary drawing process. There are a lot of kids around Glebe, Ashlawn, and McKinley who aren't "walkable" because those roads are busier and therefore classified as off-limits to elementary kids without a crossing guard. And APS assumes in its analysis that there are no new crossing guards added to the system. But if you look at where kids actually live, you can see the need to leave more neighborhood seats in that area. Otherwise, you have to push kids upwards in a domino effect to fill the empty seats at Jamestown and Discovery. And that creates long skinny boundaries and probably at the end some walkers on the bus. The alternative is leaving Ashlawn, Reed, and Glebe overcrowded (and possibly also Tuckahoe in a few years, depending on what happens with those new townhomes and development around EFC) with empty seats at Discovery and Jamestown.

We need to leave breathing room in the areas of the County where we expect growth. That's the concern.

page 5 https://www.apsva.us/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/Getting-Started-Working-Session-Presentation_FINAL.pdf

Important note - the shades of green are based on total number of students and unrelated to actual size, so a large PU that is dark green has the same number as a tiny PU that is dark green.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you look at the capacity percentages after the move, you will see this is going to one huge CF. By disbanding McKinley entirely, they have Reed at 96%, Glebe between 92-104 and Ashlawn between 91-108%. Meanwhile, they leave Tuckahoe at 83/77%, ASFS possibly at 76% and the Jamestown/Disc/Nott tried in the 80's. They clearly are moving ATS to the wrong school. It needs to go into a smaller capacity school to not totally mess up the balance all over again. Either that or they need to move a heck of a lot more McK into Tuckahoe and Glebe into ASFS.

This:
Either that or they need to move a heck of a lot more McK into Tuckahoe and Glebe into ASFS.

I think we are going to see very few current McK families at Reed. It's going to be crazy. Do away with options and draw logical lines! and let kids cross busy roads with crossing guards. Dman people, this is not hard.

I really hope staff sends the planning units in the area where it makes the most sense rather than prioritizing sending more McKinley units to Reed (e.g. if Glebe/Tuckahoe/Ashlawn are closer or if McKinley units are bussed to Reed while kids walkable to Reed are bussed to Tuckahoe to fill it). Just RIP the bandaid off!

+1

The Westover/Reed lobby will have its hand all over this. They want as many walkers as they can get but want those walkers to actually walk. They will easily send some of those units to Tuckahoe that they think won't actually walk.

And there's no way fewer McK kids will go to Reed than we think. There are a ton so close it really will be half of McK.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone summarize the “Save McKinley” argue as to why that’s better for the broader system, rather than just people in the McKinley walk zone? I know that numbers put out so far show some enrollment imbalance, but that can be fixed through boundary refinement that would be necessary under any scenario. Part of what made the Tuckahoe thing so alienating was that their argument was all about what was best for them, regardless of anyone else’s needs. I think Nottingham’s activism was ultimately self-serving, but at least they made arguments why what was best for them was also better for the broader system. What’s McKinley‘s argument for why anyone but McKinley people should care about this proposal to move ATS to McKinley?

Because this proposal basically leaves Reed at capacity from day one without allowing for growth, and it also leaves Ashlawn and Glebe over while not addressing Tuckahoe/Nottingham. And the only way to change that is to do the opposite of what they're saying and redraw all the boundaries anyway. Where, if you make Nottingham/Tuckahoe option and keep Mck and Reed you get more rebalancing.

All of those things can be refined and addressed when they actually draw the boundaries- they can shift assignments to better balance things out. It doesn't mean that the fundamental plan is flawed, only that some of the people being moved don't like it and are trying to shine the spotlight on other communities instead to spare their own.

'

At that point you're not moving McK as a whole, you're moving about half of it. And you'd be drawing the crazy boundaries they've been trying to avoid from the beginning.

So, the argument does boil down to "let other people be impacted or have crazy boundaries, just not us."

McKinley was never going to move as a whole when Reed opened. I don't understand how all the McKinley folks are ignoring that fact.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone summarize the “Save McKinley” argue as to why that’s better for the broader system, rather than just people in the McKinley walk zone? I know that numbers put out so far show some enrollment imbalance, but that can be fixed through boundary refinement that would be necessary under any scenario. Part of what made the Tuckahoe thing so alienating was that their argument was all about what was best for them, regardless of anyone else’s needs. I think Nottingham’s activism was ultimately self-serving, but at least they made arguments why what was best for them was also better for the broader system. What’s McKinley‘s argument for why anyone but McKinley people should care about this proposal to move ATS to McKinley?

I'm curious about this, as well. I really don't get it since so much of McKinley is actually in the Reed walk zone. Is it No More Option Schools in the N or just We Want to Keep Walking Regardless Of The Greater Consequences?

Let me try. That APS zone map that is supposedly driving this decision was misleading. If you look at where the population is today in Arlington (and where it is expected to grow), it is all south of Lee Highway. By clustering McKinley in Zone 1 and Taylor in Zone 2, APS masked the reality of where the population density currently sits and where the empty seats are really located. A better map would have been a heat map at the planning unit level so you can see where the number of kids are located OUTSIDE the walkable planning units. They also need to look at which planning units send a larger # of kids to private school.

When you go back and look at the planning unit level data that they released during the 2018 walk zone meetings, you can see where this is about to become a complete CF during the boundary drawing process. There are a lot of kids around Glebe, Ashlawn, and McKinley who aren't "walkable" because those roads are busier and therefore classified as off-limits to elementary kids without a crossing guard. And APS assumes in its analysis that there are no new crossing guards added to the system. But if you look at where kids actually live, you can see the need to leave more neighborhood seats in that area. Otherwise, you have to push kids upwards in a domino effect to fill the empty seats at Jamestown and Discovery. And that creates long skinny boundaries and probably at the end some walkers on the bus. The alternative is leaving Ashlawn, Reed, and Glebe overcrowded (and possibly also Tuckahoe in a few years, depending on what happens with those new townhomes and development around EFC) with empty seats at Discovery and Jamestown.

We need to leave breathing room in the areas of the County where we expect growth. That's the concern.

page 5 https://www.apsva.us/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/Getting-Started-Working-Session-Presentation_FINAL.pdf

Important note - the shades of green are based on total number of students and unrelated to actual size, so a large PU that is dark green has the same number as a tiny PU that is dark green.

OP. Thank you for pointing out this map! So to further explain what I was saying above... if you look at the map on Slide 5 of the above presentation, and you draw Lee Highway on this map, you can see that TODAY that the northern part of the County is already the least densely populated. It is also the area where no new development is planned AND that likely has the highest opt out rates for private because those are the families who can afford it. The +133 seats in Zone 1 are located here, not anywhere near McKinley. How do you fill those seats other than by drawing crazy boundaries?

I am sure that when Nattress proposed Nottingham last year, she was trying to split the baby. She wanted to put ATS a little more central and she also knew that it wasn't a crazy bus ride for those kids to move north to Discovery (and Discovery kids to Jamestown). I know that proposal sucked for Nottingham-- and no doubt, Nottingham is a very walkable location, so it would have led to higher overall busing costs. But moving ATS to McKinley now is still not solving that underlying problem.

The middle school boundary process left Williamsburg and Hamm under-enrolled, while leaving Swanson, Jefferson, and Gunston over-capacity. We're about to see something similar happen under this proposal. And that means, we'll be redrawing boundaries again in two years, just like we are about to do at the middle school level.

[Anonymous]

I simply do not understand why all of you folks with excellent and shiny new north arlington schools are up and at arms over this. So you have to go a little further to get to your excellent school. So what. The school board will make sure your kids are no longer in crowded schools. Have you not learned that the school board takes care of north arlington? I mean, they assigned Reed as a neighborhood school knowing they would then have an excess of seats in the area. Enjoy what your money bought.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone summarize the “Save McKinley” argue as to why that’s better for the broader system, rather than just people in the McKinley walk zone? I know that numbers put out so far show some enrollment imbalance, but that can be fixed through boundary refinement that would be necessary under any scenario. Part of what made the Tuckahoe thing so alienating was that their argument was all about what was best for them, regardless of anyone else’s needs. I think Nottingham’s activism was ultimately self-serving, but at least they made arguments why what was best for them was also better for the broader system. What’s McKinley‘s argument for why anyone but McKinley people should care about this proposal to move ATS to McKinley?

Because this proposal basically leaves Reed at capacity from day one without allowing for growth, and it also leaves Ashlawn and Glebe over while not addressing Tuckahoe/Nottingham. And the only way to change that is to do the opposite of what they're saying and redraw all the boundaries anyway. Where, if you make Nottingham/Tuckahoe option and keep Mck and Reed you get more rebalancing.

All of those things can be refined and addressed when they actually draw the boundaries- they can shift assignments to better balance things out. It doesn't mean that the fundamental plan is flawed, only that some of the people being moved don't like it and are trying to shine the spotlight on other communities instead to spare their own.

'

At that point you're not moving McK as a whole, you're moving about half of it. And you'd be drawing the crazy boundaries they've been trying to avoid from the beginning.

So, the argument does boil down to "let other people be impacted or have crazy boundaries, just not us."

McKinley was never going to move as a whole when Reed opened. I don't understand how all the McKinley folks are ignoring that fact.

These are my neighbors. We are far from McK and somehow they thought our kids would take a bus PAST Reed and still stay at McK when it opened. Crazy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone summarize the “Save McKinley” argue as to why that’s better for the broader system, rather than just people in the McKinley walk zone? I know that numbers put out so far show some enrollment imbalance, but that can be fixed through boundary refinement that would be necessary under any scenario. Part of what made the Tuckahoe thing so alienating was that their argument was all about what was best for them, regardless of anyone else’s needs. I think Nottingham’s activism was ultimately self-serving, but at least they made arguments why what was best for them was also better for the broader system. What’s McKinley‘s argument for why anyone but McKinley people should care about this proposal to move ATS to McKinley?

I'm curious about this, as well. I really don't get it since so much of McKinley is actually in the Reed walk zone. Is it No More Option Schools in the N or just We Want to Keep Walking Regardless Of The Greater Consequences?

Let me try. That APS zone map that is supposedly driving this decision was misleading. If you look at where the population is today in Arlington (and where it is expected to grow), it is all south of Lee Highway. By clustering McKinley in Zone 1 and Taylor in Zone 2, APS masked the reality of where the population density currently sits and where the empty seats are really located. A better map would have been a heat map at the planning unit level so you can see where the number of kids are located OUTSIDE the walkable planning units. They also need to look at which planning units send a larger # of kids to private school.

When you go back and look at the planning unit level data that they released during the 2018 walk zone meetings, you can see where this is about to become a complete CF during the boundary drawing process. There are a lot of kids around Glebe, Ashlawn, and McKinley who aren't "walkable" because those roads are busier and therefore classified as off-limits to elementary kids without a crossing guard. And APS assumes in its analysis that there are no new crossing guards added to the system. But if you look at where kids actually live, you can see the need to leave more neighborhood seats in that area. Otherwise, you have to push kids upwards in a domino effect to fill the empty seats at Jamestown and Discovery. And that creates long skinny boundaries and probably at the end some walkers on the bus. The alternative is leaving Ashlawn, Reed, and Glebe overcrowded (and possibly also Tuckahoe in a few years, depending on what happens with those new townhomes and development around EFC) with empty seats at Discovery and Jamestown.

We need to leave breathing room in the areas of the County where we expect growth. That's the concern.

page 5 https://www.apsva.us/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/Getting-Started-Working-Session-Presentation_FINAL.pdf

Important note - the shades of green are based on total number of students and unrelated to actual size, so a large PU that is dark green has the same number as a tiny PU that is dark green.

OP. Thank you for pointing out this map! So to further explain what I was saying above... if you look at the map on Slide 5 of the above presentation, and you draw Lee Highway on this map, you can see that TODAY that the northern part of the County is already the least densely populated. It is also the area where no new development is planned AND that likely has the highest opt out rates for private because those are the families who can afford it. The +133 seats in Zone 1 are located here, not anywhere near McKinley. How do you fill those seats other than by drawing crazy boundaries?

I am sure that when Nattress proposed Nottingham last year, she was trying to split the baby. She wanted to put ATS a little more central and she also knew that it wasn't a crazy bus ride for those kids to move north to Discovery (and Discovery kids to Jamestown). I know that proposal sucked for Nottingham-- and no doubt, Nottingham is a very walkable location, so it would have led to higher overall busing costs. But moving ATS to McKinley now is still not solving that underlying problem.

The middle school boundary process left Williamsburg and Hamm under-enrolled, while leaving Swanson, Jefferson, and Gunston over-capacity. We're about to see something similar happen under this proposal. And that means, we'll be redrawing boundaries again in two years, just like we are about to do at the middle school level.

I agree and am concerned about the same thing. They can’t fill those northern-most schools without big boundaries, because the kids aren’t there. Everything has to shift N. Or we leave those schools really under-utilized. That’s not acceptable to me.